MF basing

[randynovotny]

MF are listed as 3 or 4 to a stand. It doesn't specifically say so but I am assuming that the 3 to a base are for undrilled and the 4 to a base are for drilled foot. I am getting this from other rules and assuming it may apply to FOG also.

[bahdahbum]

Nothing is said about drilled or not . We should forget "DBM" . I would say, do as you please , look for the effect or if you want some economy , put 3 per base so you need less figurines

[Empgamer]

I'm planning on 3, mainly to readily differentiate between MF and HF. One thing we are not quite clear on is that there has been a thread talking about where a list classifies a troop type as 'HF or MF' and the gist of was that where this happens it is so that gamers may make their own mind up about certain troop types (e.g. Roman Auxilia) and use them according to which evidence they prefer but on a PERMANENT basis (e.g. in every game they play) and NOT so they can exploit the tactical nuances between taking them as MF in one game and HF in the next.

I can't recall if this thread was old, or if it applied to all troops thus classified but, if it is the case, I think that needs to be made explicit in the rules. While I like having that choice I think it would be odd if players field such troops differently each time they play. It may also cause some problems perhaps where tournaments have a troop type classed as HF where the player has been using them as MF for his/her whole FOG gaming career, potentially wrong footing them.

Like I say, not sure if this argument still applies at all but if it does, I wonder if there might be more benefit to having an appendix of optional troop gradings at the back of the Companion boks, listing the troops as one type (HF or MF) in the under the army lists (say on the basis of what the most evidence SEEMS to be indicating), with the page at the back showing what they can be used as if players so wish. This might allow competition, event and campaign organisers to default to the main lists thus allowing some commonality nationally and even internationally.

[babyshark]

I'm planning on 3, mainly to readily differentiate between MF and HF. One thing we are not quite clear on is that there has been a thread talking about where a list classifies a troop type as 'HF or MF' and the gist of was that where this happens it is so that gamers may make their own mind up about certain troop types (e.g. Roman Auxilia) and use them according to which evidence they prefer but on a PERMANENT basis (e.g. in every game they play) and NOT so they can exploit the tactical nuances between taking them as MF in one game and HF in the next.

You may certainly exploit the tactical nuances offered by MF and HF by changing how you take the troops from game to game. Although, to be sure, you may not change from game to game within a single tournament. You must make that decision when you design your army list and are stuck with it for the duration of the event. Next tournament, however, you may change your decision based on the disasters and misjudgments you made in the previous event. The rebasing (deeper bases for MF, shallower for HF) can be a bit of a chore, but isn't changing your mind part of the fun of being an ancients gamer?

Marc

[rbodleyscott]

Like I say, not sure if this argument still applies at all but if it does, I wonder if there might be more benefit to having an appendix of optional troop gradings at the back of the Companion boks, listing the troops as one type (HF or MF) in the under the army lists (say on the basis of what the most evidence SEEMS to be indicating), with the page at the back showing what they can be used as if players so wish. This might allow competition, event and campaign organisers to default to the main lists thus allowing some commonality nationally and even internationally.

Problem with this is that it would exclude a lot of players' armies from tournaments unless the player is willing to rebase for the tournament.

[Empgamer]

Take the point but, if players are using armies based for DBM, they will likely be one classification or another and, if they DO rebase (to accord with the default Companion book listing), they will only have to do it once and I'm not sure how much re-basing there'd be for most? One or two troop types? If coming new to the game they will probably base to the defaults and perhaps fudge the base depth if they want to use the optional troop types. If it is left as it is, there could potentially be a need for players to double up on the respective troop types, just in case a tournament or event opts for, for instance, Roman Auxilia as heavy this time round. Less of a problem if organisers are as flexible with base depths on the table (as the rules allow), something I suspect that just MIGHT not happen. Personally I'd rather re-base affected troops once than have to double up on them to cover both angels. Just a thought.

[nikgaukroger]

I doubt there is really much of an issue here to be honest. If players feel that one option is the best one they will generally go for that and if they think they will need both options they'll get the figures - a good example is the foederati infantry in the DBM Patrician list where many players have both the Ax and Wb figures.

Additionally you can generally ignore the base depth difference as long as there is no confusion with other figures in the army - for example if a Principate Roman has all it's Auxilia as HF it probably won't matter if they are DBM Ax at 20mm base depths.

[Empgamer]

You're probably right. I was more thinking of troops like Auxilia where, up to now, most players will likely have them based either one way or another for all their games as opposed to troops where, because of DBM basing, they will likely have both types. You may also be right about depths not mattering, but we all know what tournaments can do to rules and flexibility

[rbodleyscott]

You're probably right. I was more thinking of troops like Auxilia where, up to now, most players will likely have them based either one way or another for all their games as opposed to troops where, because of DBM basing, they will likely have both types. You may also be right about depths not mattering, but we all know what tournaments can do to rules and flexibility

The army lists allow the player to choose. We don't plan to change that now. All the tournaments we have had so far have required players to specify one or the other for the whole tournament.

If they want to take them differently to different tournaments, the lists allow it. I don't see this as an issue.

[Empgamer]

Neither do I PROVIDED organisers don't get pedantic about base depths, that's the only concern fro me. As an example I certainly don't intend to buy a complete further set of auxilia to base them up as HF so I can cover both options if a tourney declares that they are HF for that event. Matter for me of course but either the organisers will have to (reasonably IMHO) accept the base depth discrepancies at times or be pedantic (in which case I won't be going). The pedantry of some organisers (and indeed some players) is the only concern here, and it does exist.

[pcelella]

Well, I certainly hope that tournament organizers don't get fiddly about base depths!

I know a bunch of guys with 25mm WAB armies that I'm pretty sure I can get to give Field of Glory a try. They can base their figs as is on bases or movement trays that are 60mm wide for each element. There will only be two cavalry max per element on a 50mm deep base, and never more than 3 infantry figs on a single element, but since these rules don't count figs, it doesn't matter. And the rules explicitly state it is fine to go with deeper depths. Really, if the intent is to make the acceptance of these new rules as wide ranging as possible initially, then I say it is important to accommodate players with existing armies.

Peter

[Empgamer]

I'd agree. Something that can perhaps be dealt with via BHGS (or whatever body is relevant) 'Competition criteria' either from the outset or if it ever becomes an issue.

As an addendum - I wasn't particularly pressing for a change as such. More querying whether it had been considered. The point of Betas I think

[nikgaukroger]

Well in the DBM comps I've played in over the years I've never yet seen organisers get silly over slightly "non-standard" troops nor players come to that, at least that I can recall (other than mentioning it at the start of games). As I said the main thing is that there is no confusion with other troops in the army.

I'm with Richard on this that there really isn't an issue.